This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - TTom
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 13
« on: February 24, 2009, 09:48:46 AM »
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney whpo has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"
Let's have strategy talk if you care to engage me. Forget your own morals, lawyers have to disregard that. First rule of a lawyer: what we think or know really doesn't matter; it's what we can prove that counts.
so...I've posed the question. What can you prove? What would you attempt to prove, and why?
How would you defend the OP if he were your client?
Would you make a quid pro quo with the LSAC...no law school attendance for five years, withdraw all applications...LSAC no irregularities report. Would you file a temporary injunction and sue to have the LSAC drop its investigation? I don't even know if that can be done. Would you put a gun to the boss's head and tell him to go to bat for his protege? Or would you tell OP to throw himself on the mercy of the LSAC?
What would you do? Let's have some ideas.
« on: February 24, 2009, 09:48:21 AM »
You two are missing the point, doods. If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye. Does this not happen? Ever? Can you argue that this never happens? N, you can't. So LawDog's right. It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread. Boom, you've been lawyered.
First of all, I never argued that things like this don't happen. Once again, I love conspiracy theories and am generally distrustful of any government agency. However, we're not talking about what happens in a police station!! Stop watching Law & Order marathons for your check on reality! Crime shows =/= real life. (BTW: most police stations don't have the funds to collect and store random samples of DNA, some don't even have the resources to use DNA to help solve most crimes in their district and so the technology is reserved for the most heinous and well-publicized crimes.)
We were talking about LawDog presenting the idea that the LSAC actually dusts for fingerprints on LORs as "fact." I wanted to know how LawDog came to this conclusion. I was basically told "they do and you're naive if you don't think so." Sorry, but that doesn't do much to convince me that the LSAC actually does this in practice. It seems ridiculous that the LSAC (NOT a governmental institution) would take the time and money to dust LORs or other application materials just to double-check the app for authenticity. What could they possibly hope to gain from this? They get their fee regardless. It wouldn't be worth the time and effort. I'm sure that your LSAT signature and thumb print is compared to subsequent papers (like bar apps) to determine identity, but dusting an LOR is not the same thing. It's nuts to say that the LSAC would act in exactly the same manner as a police force, if given the opportunity.
Now, if the LSAC were a police force, do I think that they would use the voluntarily obtained fingerprints when searching for a match related to a crime? Hell yes! Should they is an entirely different question.
In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.
And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?
Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.
« on: February 24, 2009, 09:48:00 AM »
Como te llamas,you make excellent points, really. We are ALL right here...EACH OF US IS CORRECT.
I have tempered several of my arguments with "moral arguments aside". Hell, I have even said that the OP did this to himself. But come on...no law school or law career for a funky letter that was at least halfway approved? We don't know if that letter even gave the OP an advantage because we don't know if it was viewed by the schools.
I have seven letters, and each school gets a different set of them, depending on which personal statement (I have three that I tweak for the schools) each school receives. How do we even know that the school viewed that letter? And at GWU officials may or may not have looked at all b/c GWU doesn't require letters.
But until all of the facts come out, we won't know what the appropriate punishment is. For example, what if the OP has done something else to really make his supervisor mad and his supervisor is getting even. Or what if the LSAC has lied to call the OP's bluff. It's entirely possible that his boss actually copped to authorizing the letter but the LSAC didn't buy it. And does the OP still work for his boss? If my employee falsified a letter in my name, I would fire him. Apparently that hasn't happened.
There are still questions to answer. I question whether the OP's boss really sold him out. My guess is that the OP is really sunk. But we watched O.J. walk (the first time), GWB escape impeachment and Clay Bennett steal the Seattle Sonics and lie under oath about it. I never say never.
« on: February 23, 2009, 10:25:23 PM »
I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.
Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.
I've have never said that nola shouldn't try to defend him/herself. Only that I don't wish nola luck in succeeding, because I find nola's action indefensible.
Although I agree that we don't know "all the facts," there are NO facts that could reveal themselves that would justify what nola did. Seriously, what possible facts would justify making up a letter of recommendation and forging someone's name? Even IF nola's boss said nola could (and nola's boss did not give nola permission), this still would not have justified it.
« on: February 23, 2009, 09:28:39 PM »
And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft." If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:
“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”
“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”
“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”
“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.
“…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”
Thanks for snipping all my quotes! Now here's one by you:
"I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say."
YES, IT IS OUR POSITION.
What do you not understand about that? The legal profession is self-regulating. We are the ones that will decide the rules of conduct that apply to our profession. It is
our "position" to say "we don't need rotten" lawyers.
The people in law school now -us- will be the ones that sit on benches and committees that will write and interpret rules of professional conduct. Not some separate body of non-lawyers but the legal profession itself.
As lawyers to be we have every right to advocate on behalf of a better profession. A profession without people like nola.
« on: February 23, 2009, 04:56:19 PM »
It's just that I thought this whole thing was about helping the OP stay out of trouble. Certainly my ideas about THAT were correct.
My advice stands; the OP needs to speak with an attorney (one who specializes in Education Law - and there is such a field) and his boss, and come up with a strategy, BEFORE LSAC charges him. If he cannot get an attorney or a hearing, he should call the U.S. Dept. of Education and ask if they can refer him to a good Education Lawyer.
He's entitled to submit evidence of his innocence and, if necessary, receive a hearing and defend against the LSAC's charges.
"Due Process" extends beyond our criminal and civil courts. It is a "doctrine" as well as a "law" and a "constitutional right". Doctrines are nothing more than "ideals"/"principles" that inform the creation of public policy...that is it. Therefore, a university will enact due process before expelling a student for plagarism, and the LSAC must extend due process to any accused law applicant.
You are retarded. I've come to that conclusion. It's really the only explanation.
You're throwing around a lot of words and ideas and you have no idea know what they mean. What "charges" are you talking about? This isn't a criminal proceeding. And where do you get this idea that he's "entitled" to submit evidence of his innocence? Is there a process you can cite? And please, stop invoking due process because you clearly have no idea what it means. A university is required to give due process if it's a public institution.
And as for hiring an "education" lawyer: You don't know what the F--- you are talking about. Please stop. Just make it stop.
« on: February 23, 2009, 04:46:18 PM »
You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you. It's as simple as that. Noone has gotten any logic wrong. You're missing the point.
If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence. Anecdotal evidence will not fly.
You two are missing the point, doods. If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye. Does this not happen? Ever? Can you argue that this never happens? No, you can't. So LawDog's right. It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread. Boom, you've been lawyered.
So because police will use DNA during the course of an investigation where they suspect an individual, it therefore goes without saying that LSAC dusts letters for fingerprints, and the burden is on us to prove that it doesn't?
Here's what probably really happened: Nola wrote a suspicious letter, i.e., "Nola walks on water!," signed her boss's name, and sent it from her address or forgot to include the form that is supposed to be included by the letter writer.
Any suggestion that LSAC dusted for finger prints is retarded. And LawDog's claim that he has access to some secret files that documented LSAC's use of finger prints is pura mierda.
« on: February 23, 2009, 04:39:28 PM »
The op's obviously a really good guy. The LSAC should stop busting his chops. Sorry, won't do it again. Let's not ruin lives here folks. What he did wasn't even really dishonest. He was just following the standards of conduct which his employer previous instituted. No deceit, no harm. Everyone needs to back the @#!* off. Now.
Writing a letter and forging your boss's name without permission isn't "really dishonest"?
What standards of conduct are you talking about? Did his employer routinely have him write recommendation letters and sign other people's names?
Yeah there was deceit. Yeah, there's harm: It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.
« on: February 23, 2009, 02:49:35 PM »
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.
Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!
You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.
I love the part about how they bought yachts with female deer! No way, that's INSANE!
« on: February 23, 2009, 02:46:45 PM »
Let me tell you. Schools cannot kick students out without a hearing...can they? NO! In "for cause" states, employers cannot fire employees without proving their allegations...correct?
No...I am an 0L. I have NOT have ConLaw, but I have common sense. The LSAC is not going to charge this kid without offering him an appeal option or a hearing...bet on it.
And you misstated my logic:
I did not say "you cannot prove that it doesn't happen,. so it does happen". NOT MY LOGIC
I am saying, "You have more evidence that it does happen than evidence that it doesn't, so don't dismiss it until you can prove that it doesn't happen. Moreover, you are better off assuming that it does." MY LOGIC!
I appreciate you admitting that you don't know what you're talking about. Finally.
What does employment law (which you clearly don't understand) have anything to do with the fact that the LSAC is a private organization and due process doesn't apply? [Btw, I'm not saying they don't give process, only that they wouldn't be required, unless they were the equivalent perhaps of a state actor... Oh, why am I even bothering. This is so far above your head LawDog.]
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 13